SuperSite Blog

It's not that easy, Paul, because converting a low-bitrate lossy format (presumably we're talking about 128kbps WMAs here?) to MP3 will cause a fair amount of consequential loss of audio fidelity. The only way to unprotect them without losing fidelity is to burn to CD then rerip in a lossless format like FLAC, WMA Lossless or Apple Lossless. Unfortunately these files are much larger in size.

Oh yeah, I'm going to mention again that currently it is impossible to buy major-label music in DRM-free formats outside the US.

If the labels would get off their collective a$$es and start allowing everyone--not just the select chosen few--to sell DRM-free music, perhaps they might see an actual increase in business.

Until then, stuff like this is going to continue to rear its ugly head and make consumers even more wary of future purchases.

It's ridiculous.

@lotsa - Along wit h allowing everyone, a good customer relationship move would be to allow anybody that has purchased a DRM laden track, to redownload it in a non-DRM format...but that is just the crack pipe talking, I think.

--tayme

tayme, just like everyone who bought audio cassettes were given CDs of the same album? :-)

I understand the flaw in my argument. The problem here is not DRM itself, but the fact that there isn't one DRM scheme that's used by everyone. They should have standardized DRM schemes and forced music stores (including Apple's) to adopt it. Right now, it's like cds that play only on Sony's players. Of course, Apple probably wouldn't have, so...

@sharky - Good point...but you responded to your own comment the same way I would...Plus, I can still get a cassette player to play the cassettes. As companies move away from the DRM systems that are in place and attempt to shut down the systems that they were on, the files no longer work. We can always burn to audio CD, as suggested...I am just saying that the labels could make a few customer brownie points if they did something like that.

--tayme

So, go on, blame DRM. It's not like DVDs have no embedded protection. No one seems to complain about that. That's because when you buy a DVD from WalMar, you're not left guessing whether it'll play on a player purchased at Target. This wouldn't be an issue if music purchased at the WalMart store played on an iPod or music purchased on iTunes played on your Zune. The way it was, the popularity of iPods killed all stores but iTMS, until Amazon came out with DRM free music.

tayme, the labels screwed up badly and came out appearing greedy. It was stupid that the RIAA chose to go after the average college student. Instead, if they had worked to standardize DRM across the board so that music purchased anywhere could play anywhere, things would've been a lot better for them. The way it is now, the only way an online music store can survive now is by selling DRM free music. Otherwise, it won't play in about 80% of the devices in the market.

Very well put, Sharky. I couldn't agree more.

--tayme

"Instead, if they had worked to standardize DRM across the board so that music purchased anywhere could play anywhere, things would've been a lot better for them."

I think the whole point of requiring different types of DRM in music is DUE to the fact that they learned that standardizing CSS on DVD basically crippled the protection once it was broken.

....and if you really think that this is designed to block hackers, think again.  DRM is supposed to prevent casual copying.  They know the "professionals" will get through it, but they're depending on it to prevent Joe Blow down the street from giving a permanent copy to his neighbour when he feels like it.  There are still many average computer users that don't know how to copy Hollywood DVD's, so CSS has at least somewhat worked.  Locking down music even harder by restricting device transfer and such, was the next logical step.  Now they've gone from a per-user licensing model, to a per-device model, potentially making them more money.  Again, their execution backfired, because now, music piracy is getting up to record highs from the "Napster-generation" that think that "music is free, and it comes from the internet".  Piracy as a protest is like saying "I hate that guy.  I'm gonna kill him so I don't have to deal with him".  

"So, go on, blame DRM. It's not like DVDs have no embedded protection. No one seems to complain about that. That's because when you buy a DVD from WalMar [sic], you're not left guessing whether it'll play on a player purchased at Target."

No, that's because you're not left worrying that some day, a company will shut down its servers or go out of business and you'll be left with a collection of bits that are as useless as a Waethorn opinion.

The DRM on my DVD player doesn't require my DVD player to "phone home" to work. That's the difference. The DRM on a DVD is irrelevant unless I want to make a copy. But with music, I have to periodically check in to a server that may or may not exist at some point in the future. As long as my DVD player holds out mechanically and there's electricity available, I'll be able to play that shiny disc. As recent failures on the part of behemoths Microsoft and Wal*Mart show, that's not necessarily true with music.

The labels have made everyone from Apple to Microsoft on down--with the only notable exception of Amazon-- buy into this ridiculous scheme to operate. I put the full blame for this garbage on their shoulders. Blame DRM? You bet your sweet a$$ I do.

Lotsa, you are completely and utterly missing Wae's point. I fear it may be impossible to explain to you.

"I think the whole point of requiring different types of DRM in music is DUE to the fact that they learned that standardizing CSS on DVD basically crippled the protection once it was broken."

Waethorn is correct.  The fact that these DRM schemes are tied closely to ongoing communication with servers for validation is clearly a direct result of CSS being broken.  The problem, of course, is that ALL DRM is eventually broken.

There is a value in the DRM for alternative business models like subscription music.  It's a lock in that's no different than the subscription fee for satelite radio or cable.  Use it/pay for it, or lose it.  But DRM for purchases of a product that the consumer has an expectation of "ownership" shouldn't have DRM because it's futile and inhibits ease of use.

People don't, and never have "purchased" music as we know the term. All they really paid for was the right to play that particular piece of medium they'd bought, be it a shellac, an 8-track, a cassette, vinyl or CD.

They never had any other rights other than playback of that particular format. A conversation I had this week even leads me to belive the whole "you can make one backup for personal use" thing is an urban myth, but I'll have to investigate depper into that.

technically, copying digital music from your PC to a music player was illegal until very recently, even AFTER such stores as i-tunes existed.

I guess what I'm saying is the traditional livensing law needs a bit of an overhaul with regards to the modern market.

We need to make music accessible, make DRM transparent and unobtrusive, but still prevent copyright infringement, ESPECIALLY casual piracy.

"There is a value in the DRM for alternative business models like subscription music. "

Yes, but it's the same problem. Subscription music will never succeed the way it can unless it works on an iPod. And that's one case where DRM is necessary.

The music labels really screwed this one up. Not only has the piracy problem not been solved. Now they've also lost all control to Apple.

"Lotsa, you are completely and utterly missing Wae's point. I fear it may be impossible to explain to you."

I wasn't responding to Waethorn. I fear it may be impossible to explain that to you.

fair enough, no need to be an *** about it.